Henry Nelson wrote (replying to my text): > > Actually, I'd like to be able to do that even if the reload completed > > entirely successfully. I'd like to be able to compare the old and new > > versions, see what the owner changed. > > > > These ideas imply some extensions to Lynx's internal knowledge about a > > document. It should know whether the document is complete or partial. > > I know that most people on the list have no love for a cacheing proxy, > but I guess what I don't understand is _why_ it's so unfavorable. Is it > that there is no proxy out there that is configurable the way you want? > Is it that the a majority of users now run Lynx on Windows, and it's too > hard to set up a proxy on a PC? There was the argument that installing > a cacheing proxy would bloat the system, but I don't see this either. I > don't see a standalone cacheing proxy (that not only Lynx, but any other > browser on the system can use) adding significant weight to the system > beyond what the same functionality within Lynx would do.
My issue is that I want Lynx to be able to stand alone. I don't object to its being _able_ to benefit from tools like a local proxy, but I also don't want it to _depend_ on it for what is (to me) necessary functionality. I use Lynx as a support tool; that means being able to slam it onto a system I'm trying to help, or use the existing installation, without having to fiddle around with things like installing a proxy. When I ssh to my mom's system across the Internet, trying to help her with some sort of performance problem or whatever, the _last_ thing I want to do is perturb the environment by adding complex caching daemons! Dropping in a reasonably current Lynx binary is perturbation enough. >Bela< ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
